Tuesday, September 22, 2015

By Siesta-friendly
As
we discussed in Part 1, the first challenged Ordinance (No. 8027) – which reclassified the Pandacan area from
Industrial to Commercial and ordered industrial businesses like the oil
industries maintaining depots in the area to cease and desist from operating –
was held as constitutional by the SC.

In an about-face, Manila city hall then issued Ordinance No. 8187
for the purpose of reclassifying (again) the Pandacan area by creating a Medium
Industrial Zone and Heavy Industrial Zone thus allowing oil depots to continue
to exist in Pandacan.

If your first ordinance was upheld by the Supreme Court as a valid
exercise of police power because it aimed “to safeguard the rights to life,
security and safety of the inhabitants of Manila”, why not issue another
ordinance to repeal it, completely contradict it and forget about that small
concern regarding the life, security and safety of the inhabitants of Manila.

Let us allow the SC to explain why –

“… the
position of the Sangguniang Panlungsod on the matter has thrice changed,
largely depending on the new composition of the council and/or political
affiliations. The foregoing, thus, shows that its determination of the “general
welfare” of the city does not after all gear towards the protection of the
people in its true sense and meaning, but is, one way or another, dependent on
the personal preference of the members who sit in the council as to which
particular sector among its constituents it wishes to favor.”

Mindful that the safety of the Manileños were still at risk, the
SC continued -

“Now
that the City of Manila, through the mayor and the city councilors, has changed
its view on the matter, favoring the city’s economic-related benefits, through
the continued stay of the oil terminals, over the protection of the very lives
and safety of its constituents, it is imperative for this Court to make a final
determination on the basis of the facts on the table as to which specific right
of the inhabitants of Manila should prevail…”

Thus, the SC struck down Ordinance No 8187 as invalid and unconstitutional
for the same reasons it upheld the constitutionality of Ordinance No. 8027, further
saying that -

“The issue of
whether or not the Pandacan Terminal is not a likely target of terrorist
attacks has already been passed upon in G. R. No. 156052.Based on the assessment of the Committee on
Housing, Resettlement and Urban Development of the City of Manila and the then
position of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, the Court was convinced that the
threat of terrorism is imminent. It remains so convinced.

… the very nature
of the depots where millions of liters of highly flammable and highly volatile
products, regardless of whether or not the composition may cause explosions,
has no place in a densely populated area. Surely, any untoward incident in the
oil depots, be it related to terrorism of whatever origin or otherwise, would
definitely cause not only destruction to properties within and among the
neighboring communities but certainly mass deaths and injuries.

xxx

It is the removal
of the danger to life not the mere subdual of risk of catastrophe, that we saw
in and made us favor Ordinance No. 8027. That reason, unaffected by Ordinance
No. 8187, compels the affirmance of our Decision in G.R. No. 156052.”

And so, the SC finally set a definite period for
the relocation of the oil depot -

“The oil companies
shall be given a fresh non-extendible period of forty-five (45) days from
notice within which to submit to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Manila an updated
comprehensive plan and relocation schedule. The relocation, in turn, shall be
completed not later than six months from the date of their submission.”

We expect this to be the
last we hear of the continued stay of the depots even though there is a new
mayor in Manila, different from the mayor who signed Ordinance No. 8027 and
different from that who signed Ordinance No. 8187.It was the Supreme Court that had to remind
local legislators that they are supposed to have the welfare of the people
foremost in mind.

Saturday, September 12, 2015

By Siesta-friendly
The next Philippine President is constitutionally set to hold office for 6 years
from 2016 – 2022. And within her/his
term, 11 Supreme Court justices are constitutionally mandated to retire once
they reach 70 years.
Already potent as it is, the president’s power to appoint will be most significant when
it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices as the new Chief Executive will
be able to pack the court.
Judicial review

With
the 1987 Constitution’s power of judicial review, to wit -

“Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” (Section 1, Article
VIII, 1987 Constitution)

citizens
have appealed to the Supreme Court on issues seemingly strictly within the jurisdiction
of the executive or legislative departments.

Where
pre-1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court could cite the doctrine of “political
question” as a valid excuse in refusing to settle certain executive or
legislative actions, that is no longer the case. With the 1987 Constitutional provision on
judicial review, any act of a government official/s can be questioned on
constitutional grounds if done in “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction”.

So,
if the next President chooses well, we can have a Supreme Court that can
provide an effective check on executive or legislative excesses. If not, we end up with a Supreme Court
rubber-stamping any questioned abusive executive or legislative action. Or
possibly worse, an activist Court that indirectly legislates through its
decisions.

And
we indirectly have a hand in shaping the composition of the Supreme Court when
we choose the person authorized to appoint its members.

Soon-to-retire SC justices

Here
are the names of the 11 justices and their respective retirement dates:

Martin S.
Villarama, Jr. - April 14, 2016

Jose P. Perez -
December 14, 2016

Arturo D. Brion -
December 29, 2016

Bienvenido L. Reyes
- July 6, 2017

Jose C. Mendoza -
August 13, 2017

Presbitero J.
Velasco - August 8, 2018

Teresita Leonardo-De Castro- Oct. 8, 2018

Mariano C. Del
Castillo - July 29, 2019

Lucas P. Bersamin - October
18, 2019

Antonio T. Carpio -
October 26, 2019

Francis H.
Jardeleza - September 26, 1949

We
note that 10 of the 11 are Gloria Arroyo appointees, so while we look forward
to the diminishing Arroyo court, we are wary that the next President would
appoint justices lacking independence, integrity and morality thereby forming
another President’s court which will unabashedly issue decisions favoring their
appointer.

Thus,
we need a President with independence, integrity and morality to get a Supreme
Court of the same character.

So
this campaign season, let us encourage debates on governance issues, and not
politics. Let us set high standards for
our leaders, and not settle for popularity. Let us look for the leader who will have the people’s interest – not
his, nor his family, cronies or party’s – at heart. And let us vote wisely. It is not only the membership in the Court
that is at stake but our very future.

“A
world is supported by four things ...

the
learning of the wise,

the
justice of the great,

the
prayers of the righteous

and
the valour of the brave.

But
all of these are as nothing ... without a ruler who knows the art of ruling.”